LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ellid)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/125623/7179

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Bodyhack article talks about the lack of activity in the language center of the brain when Pentecostals speak in 'tongues':

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have performed the first brain-scan study on a group of Pentecostal practitioners while they were speaking in tongues, a practice also known as glossolalia.

It turned out that activity in the language centers of the Pentecostals' brains decreased during the tests, "although the practitioners spoke in a coherent language-like way," according to an email from Mark Waldman, who is editor of Transpersonal Review and is writing a book with the lead Penn researcher on the study, Andrew Newberg.

Some would say this is proof that something is speaking 'through' them, and others would cite this as proof that they're making it all up. I guess that is up to the non/believer.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY 1400scale)

The vast majority of fundamentalists regard the Bible as wholly inerrant, particularly the Book of Genesis.

Here are a few questions one can ask them, not so much to "disprove" Genesis or to inspire answers to said questions, but more to (hopefully) encourage deeper thought among some of the more reasonable ones.

Feel free to post any other questions you can think of that might result in that.


1. According to the classical understanding of Original Sin, humans were created perfect and immortal, but had a finite lifespan sentenced upon them by God as punishment for disobedience in the Garden of Eden which was passed on through their offspring, eg. "inherited sin".

Medical science has learned that humans grow old and die by the exact same biological process as all other creatures (telomerase reduction in cell subdivision). Animals are instinctive and incapable of reason, therefore could not have chosen to disobey God, yet they grow old and die.

Why is that?

2. According to the Book of Genesis, all creatures (including humans) in the Pre-Deluge era were herbiverous.

Allosaurus teeth have been found imbedded in Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) bone. Fossil evidence clearly indicates that other prehistoric lifeforms such as Smilodon (the saber-toothed cat), Tyrannosaurus, etc. had carniverous diets, and in fact, could not survive on a herbiverous diet. Ancient cave art shows ancient tribal humans hunting deer, bison, and mammoths.

How can this be explained?

3. Traditional Christian doctrine states that the human species was created in its current form.

Neanderthal remains, discovered in Europe, is found in older (deeper) rock strata, and DNA analysis indicates that the two species are not closely related genetically.

What were they, and where did they come from?

4. Traditional Christian doctrine states that evolution by means of Natural Selection does not take place. The Biblical Ark’s dimensions are described in the book of Genesis as approxmiately 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high with three decks. Leaving room for a year’s worth of supplies and living quarters for the crew, a vessel that size would accommodate representatives of approximately 1500 to 2000 mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian species.

There nearly 30,000 confirmed and documented species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians alive today, not including marine lifeforms.

How is that possible?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ellid)

Linked with permission.


A Master Gardener found out that even the harmless nursery supplier can, and will, spew Dominionist bigotry: http://stoney321.livejournal.com/177578.html

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This interesting article details the battle between a Christian soldier who was a concientious objector, and his commander, who was an evangelical pastor and who argued against him in the court hearing.

At 10:30 a.m., on Oct. 14, 2005, nearly two dozen people gathered in a room at Fort Sill, Okla., to discuss the case of a soldier who did not want to go to war.

Specialist Jake Malloy was an Army cook and, by most accounts, such a nice guy that his friends worried that strangers might mistake his kindness for weakness. Yet not even his fellow soldiers, some of whom had already testified to Malloy’s uncommon decency, doubted the strength of his convictions.

To refuse a direct order to take up arms — an act of insubordination that might lead to a lengthy prison term — would require just that kind of fortitude.

In many ways, the hearing at Fort Sill was a formality. Malloy had already met with an Army chaplain, a psychiatrist and Maj. Donna Abrokwa, the officer assigned to investigate Malloy’s claim that his religious beliefs prohibited him from using lethal force against another human being.

Abrokwa assembled a record of the case that seemed to fit the Army’s definition of conscientious objection: “a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war of any form ... by reason of religious training or belief.”

One young woman who, like Malloy, served with the 1011th Quartermaster Company, told Abrokwa that the force of Malloy’s belief and his ability to express it made her ashamed of her relatively lesser passion.

The bulk of the testimony Abrokwa had collected as part of her investigation echoed that sentiment. In fact, only one person at Fort Sill stood up that day to challenge Jake Malloy: Maj. Paul Wynn, his commanding officer.

In most cases, a commanding officer is no more important than any other witness in a conscientious objection proceeding.

Army regulations acknowledge the “personal and subjective nature” of conscientious objection, and the path to a decision is presumed to be nonadversarial.

Most of the “evidence” is written; the hearing is considered “informal,” according to the guidelines; and witnesses are not required to testify under oath.

However, right from the start, Wynn had taken an aggressive role in challenging Malloy’s claim, even going so far as to ask the Army’s judge advocate general to begin court-martial proceedings.

The hearing at Fort Sill lasted three hours, the last two of which were dominated by Wynn’s sometimes fierce questioning of Malloy’s interpretation of the Bible.

It seems that even Christians of the same denomination have differences of opinion on who should fight in war, and why.